tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 23 07:47:41 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


>ok, so /naDev/ is no adverbial, but it can be something "similar". so 
>it seems to me that /naDev/ is a locative (besides of being a noun), 
>and therefore a chuv anyawy. is /naDev/ a locative header?

It seems that the terminology is at stake here.

An adverbial (linguistically speaking) is any word that is used in an 
adverbial capacity. There are some words which can *only* be used in an 
adverbial capacity, and those are usually referred to as adverbs. It is 
puzzling to me why Okrand called "bong", "chIch", "pIj", "tugh", etc. 
adverbials, when they are really adverbs -- they can only be used in an 
adverbial capacity; they seem to have no other function. On the other hand, 
words like DaHjaj, naDev, and even phrases like "tlhIngan Hol lo'taHvIS", are 
used in adverbial capacities, even tho they are obviously not adverbs.

To call something an adverbial is not to identify what kind of word it is, 
but rather to indicate how it is being used in a sentence. Thus:

"DaHjaj Daj." (Today it is interesting). Here, DaHjaj is an adverbial.

"Daj DaHjaj." (Today is interesting). Here, DaHjaj is not an adverbial.

DaHjaj itself is a noun; it is not an adverb, but it can be an adverbial in 
some sentences.

The same terminological principle applies to the word "header". Calling 
something a "header" is really just saying that it occurs in a certain 
syntactic position. It asserts nothing about other ways in which the word 
might possibly be used.

Andrew Strader

Back to archive top level